HomeMy WebLinkAbout022210CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING AND JOINT WORKSHOP WITH EAST
JEFFERSON FIRE AND RESCUE COMMISSIONERS OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010
CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The special meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Michelle
Sandoval at 6:15 p.m. in City Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Council members present at roll call were David King, Laurie Medlicott, Kris
Nelson, George Randels, Michelle Sandoval and Mark Welch. Catharine
Robinson was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David
Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Grant Manager Ken Horvath and City Clerk
Pam Kolacy.
SHARED RESOURCE CONSERVATION MANAGER PROGRAM
Ken Horvath, city grant manager, reviewed the packet materials. He noted that the
agreement would provide funding for a resource conservation manager to
implement a program to reduce energy costs throughout the partner organizations.
He stated the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the document and
approved it unanimously at their meeting today. The Council reviewed the
document and discusssed the concept at last week's business meeting.
There was no public comment.
Mrs. Medlicott asked for confirmation that all partners are signing the same
document. Mr. Timmons confirmed.
Motion: David King moved to authorize the City Manager to sign an interloca!
agreement for Shared Resource Conservation Management services. George
Rande/s seconded.
Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote.
ADJOURN
The special meeting was adjourned at 6:25 pm
CITY COUNCIUEAST JEFFERSON FIRE RESCUE JOINT WORKSHOP
CALL TO ORDER (6:30 P.M.)
The joint workshop meeting between the City Councii and the East Jefferson Fire
and Rescue Commissioners was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 1 of 5
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present at roll call were David King, Laurie Medlicott, Kris
Nelson, George Randels, Michelle Sandoval, and Mark Welch. Catharine
Robinson was excused. Fire Commissioners present were Rich Stap, Zane Wyll,
and Jess Bondurant. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons,
City Attorney John Watts, City Clerk Pam Kolacy, and Fire Chief Gordon Pomeroy.
DISCUSSION: FUTURE INTERLOCAL ARRANGEMENTS
Chief Pomeroy stated he is here to present information to the City on the Fire and
EMS levies the District plans to place on the April ballot as well as bringing
information on beginning the process for a strategic plan for the District that will at
some time encompass the City. Funding from the proposed levies would support
capital improvements as well as additional full time employees.
Mr. Timmons noted the City and District have a strong interlocal agreement and
that the next stage in the evolution of the relationship would be an annexation,
which is an approach that many communities have already taken. He added the
process will be expensive, but that in some respects when you look at what we
have been allocating for fire and EMS services, it is among the lowest in the state.
He said that each entity depends on the support of the other and a common
understanding and sense of direction must be agreed upon so the long term best
interests of the communities can be served.
Mr. Timmons noted that the District operates on a dedicated levy for Fire and
EMS. The City operates on a general levy which supports fire service as well as
other city services. He distributed a spreadsheet showing the figures. The
consequence of a levy increase in the City plays out differently from that of the
district. Under an annexation proposition, the City must adopt the levies of the
District so it becomes a junior taxing district over the City. Under Washington law,
the city has a maximum authorized levy under state law of $3.60 per assessed
$1,000 of property value, but if we adopt an annexation and become part of the
fire district we are required to reduce the maximum authorization from $3.60 to
$2.10. Approximately 57 cents of the general levy currently supports fire services.
If the district is successful in raising its levy to $1.25, the Council could not do a
dollar for dollar roll back without serious consequences because funds currently
allocated for other uses would be decreased by that amount. The City could bank
the 57 cents but the overall levy would still see a'net increase. He added that the
levy rate is adjusted in subsequent years although the total dollar amount
generated each year does not change. It would be a significant increase to the
voters in any case.
Mr. Timmons said that if the District acts alone it would create a wedge in the
interlocal agreement which was set up on an equity basis so that both sides were
paying the same amount from their tax collections into the fund. The proposed
Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5
District action on the levy would result in three options for the City: 1) run a levy
to support the additional Fire cost; 2) look at taking the money out of current
expenses from other services; or 3) support annexation, which puts the entire ball
into the District's court. Any of these options would require policy action from the
Council.
Mr. Stapf stated that it is important that the Council and Fire Board are on the
same page; they have a good history of cooperation for the past three years and
must agree on a plan. He hopes that tonight we can come to an understanding
that at some time it will be necessary to do an annexation; however both entities
have to address their levy rates for EMS and General Fund. He added that East
Jefferson is now operating on about half the funding of most fire districts in the
state. Most districts go for the maximum $1.50 for fire and 50 cents for EMS. He
again emphasized the importance of the unity of the two entities.
Mr. Randels asked for clarification about the annexation process, whether a
majority of district and city voters must approve annexation and if either entity
votes no on annexation, annexation fails. This was confirmed by Mr. Watts.
Ms. Sandoval stated that decisions need to be considered about which steps will
occur, when those will take place, and the implications and how the City would
gain representation on a joint board.
Mr. Wyll said that if the vote is put off until November, the District deficit will
continue to grow. He added that the fire district coverage has gone up to the
benefit of all and that the District is now running at a $250,000 deficit. Mr.
Bondurant added that the alternative is to cut staffing which would cause a serious
deficit in the District's ability to provide services.
Mrs. Medlicott pointed out that the District is operating on a levy that was
established in the late 1990s and that the demographic of older citizens means
that the call volume continues to grow.
Mr. Stapf noted that everyone agrees that service is better now than three years
ago and everyone probably agrees that annexation will be on the table at some
point, the question to be answered is when this will be done.
Mr. Randels noted that this is very short notice for a levy and expressed concerns
about the short amount of time available to provide education about the ballot
measure.
Chief Pomeroy expressed confidence that the public will support the levy, citing
other fire and school districts which have recently been successful.
There was discussion about the various ways ballots could be proposed, including
whether more than one measure could be placed on the same ballot. Mr. Watts
stated that if both the City lid lift and annexation were on the same ballot, many
Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 3 of 5
outcomes are possible. If the annexation passes and the City levy fails but the
District lid lift passes, then the new annexation district picks up the District lid lift.
The only way to nullify a lid lift would be by subsequent voter determination to
lower the lid lift. Council could do what we did with the library and say if both
passed, the city could choose not to levy the increase although it would still go into
effect.
Ms. Nelson pointed out a discrepancy in language in one of the resolutions ("no
less than" or "not to exceed"). Chief Pomeroy stated that more recent revisions
state an exact amount.
Mr. Welch noted that the City can't possibly do an annexation on the April ballot
and that August would be the earliest possible date for that vote. If the District
delays the levy it would put them in a tough place. Mr. Randels noted that if the
District goes with a levy vote in April, the educaton process has to start very soon.
Mrs. Medlicott agreed that the City should propose annexation in August and the
District should go forward with the levy in April.
Mr. King stated in a perfect world he would like the annexation vote to come first,
but the growing needs to support the efforts of the District must be met and the
District has to find the money somehow.
Ms. Nelson stated it would be easier to explain annexation to city citizens first, with
the explanation that the citizens can then vote to determine their level of service.
She added however that it is unrealistic for the District to wait for the annexation
which would allow all to vote on the levy. In April, if the fire levy passes, then the
annexation may be perceived as a City rate raise in the guise of the annexation
(rather than going directly to the citizens for a raise). The rollback for the City
makes it a very complicated message. If the levy were to fail in the District and
then we tried to ask for annexation, it may still be perceived as another way to
raise taxes.
Mr. Stapf asked the Council if they would be comfortable putting a measure on the
April ballot to restore the City levy to 50 cents; so in April the District and City go
together on resetting the EMS levy to 50 cents. In August, the City and District
could propose an annexation. An EMS levy lid lift in the District and the City would
generate about $600,000. With the current deficit, the lid lift would alleviate the
District's financial deficit. He stated that a dual campaign would probably be
successful. The bottom line for the District is that they need $600,000. This
amount would not increase service but would remove the deficit and the District
would be assured of that level of funding for the next year.
Mr. Randels stated that he is concerned about voter support being diluted by
proposing separate consecutive levies ("I just gave you money and now you want
more.") The $600,000 may be a stop gap but does open up to a degree the
election dates in 2011 should they be needed.
Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 4 of 5
Ms. Sandoval asked for public comment and the group heard comments from
Howard Scott.
Mr. Timmons added that a general levy for the city is not a dedicated levy as it is
with the Fire District and that is more difficult for voters to understand and accept.
Mr. Stapf stated that citizens will want to know what is going to be done with the
$800,000 which is freed up in the general fund if the levy is passed.
Mr. Randels stated that an intensive campaign would have to be set in motion
quickly. Ms. Sandoval strongly stated the necessity of working together to educate
the public. The time frame for an April vote is too short to stage a big event like a
town meeting regarding the levy proposals.
Discussion ensued about whether a resolution for a levy or annexation would also
set out representation issues. Mr. Watts noted this issue could be addressed
through a concurrent Memorandum of Understanding. This method should be
determined and agreed to ahead of time.
Mr. King asked how long after an annexation vote would annexation take place. It
was thought that the annexation could proceed after certification of the election.
Mr. Timmons stated that staff will need to research issues relating to the
annexation and whether the makeup of the Fire Board could be on the same
ballot. An annexation vote is straightforward but a separate ballot item could
address the makeup and number of members of the Board. He added that these
ballot measures need to be researched as to content and format and explained
thoroughly to the citizens.
There was further discussion about what the effects would be if one EMS levy
passed and another didn't. There are many scenarios. It was noted that the ballot
issue deadline is March 12 so Council must discuss and decide on their action at
the next regu{ar meeting on March 1.
Mr. Timmons stated that staff will research the various issues and bring forward a
draft resolution for the March 1 Council Business Meeting.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
Attest:
.,
<< -~~
Pamela Kolacy, MMC
City Clerk
Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 5 of 5